(Microsoft Word - MASTER COPY final revised Flash Appeal ...€¦ · Web viewsample of...

SAMPLE OF ORGANISATIONS PARTICIPATING IN CONSOLIDATED APPEALS

AARRECACFACTEDADRAAfricareAMI-FranceARCASBASIAVSICARECARITASCEMIR INTERNATIONALCESVICFACHFCHFICISVCMACONCERNConcern UniversalCOOPICORDAID

COSVCRSCWSDanchurchaidDDGDiakonie Emergency AidDRCEM-DHFAOFARFHIFinnchurchaidFSDGAAGOALGTZGVCHandicap InternationalHealthNet TPOHELPHelpAge InternationalHKIHorn Relief

HTHumedicaIAILOIMCINTERMONInternewsINTERSOSIOMIPHDIRIRCIRDIRINIRWIslamic RWJOINJRSLWFMalaria ConsortiumMalteserMercy CorpsMDA

MDMMEDAIRMENTORMERLINNCANPANRCOCHAOHCHROXFAMPA (formerly ITDG)PACTPAIPlanPMU-IPURC/GermanyRCOSamaritan's PurseSECADEVSolidaritésSUDOTEARFUND

TGHUMCORUNAIDSUNDPUNDSSUNEPUNESCOUNFPAUN-HABITATUNHCRUNICEFUNIFEMUNJLCUNMASUNOPSUNRWAVISWFPWHOWorld ConcernWorld ReliefWVZOA

SUMMARY OF THE FLASH APPEAL..........................................................................................................1

OVERVIEW OF BEST PRACTICE..............................................................................................................2

PART ONE: THE FLASH APPEAL AS A CONCEPT..........................................................................3

SECTION 1: BACKGROUND, POLICY AND PRACTICE ON KEY SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES.........3What is a flash appeal?......................................................................................................3When should it be used?....................................................................................................3Is the affected government’s permission needed for a flash appeal?.................................4Who does what?................................................................................................................4What is in the flash appeal?...............................................................................................5Why issue it quickly and keep it brief?................................................................................5What does the appeal’s “duration” mean?..........................................................................6How is the Financial Tracking Service used in flash appeals?...........................................6Flash appeals and the Online Project System....................................................................6How do flash appeals relate to the Central Emergency Response Fund?.........................7How do flash appeals and early recovery interact?............................................................8Flash appeals and the cluster approach.............................................................................9Flash appeals and contingency planning.........................................................................10Flash appeals and non-governmental organisations........................................................10Flash appeals and CAP Section.......................................................................................11

SECTION 2: REVISING FLASH APPEALS....................................................................................12Why revise a flash appeal?..............................................................................................12Purposes of flash appeal revisions...................................................................................12Who does what?...............................................................................................................13What is in the revision?....................................................................................................13Revisions and prioritisation..............................................................................................14

SECTION 3: TIMELINES AND DEADLINES..................................................................................15Suggested timeline and workflow for producing and preparing a flash appeal.................15Suggested timeline and workflow for revising flash appeals............................................17

PART TWO: FURTHER RESOURCES...............................................................................................19

ANNEX I. SELECTED GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS AND OTHER RESOURCES..............19ANNEX II. THRESHOLDS FOR TRIGGERING FLASH APPEALS....................................20ANNEX III. EXAMPLES OF PRIORITISATION...................................................................22ANNEX IV. NGOS AND FLASH APPEALS.........................................................................26ANNEX V. FINANCIAL TRACKING TIPS AND GUIDELINES FOR OCHA FOCAL POINTS

AND CLUSTER LEADS....................................................................................27ANNEX VI. USEFUL CONTACTS.......................................................................................28ANNEX VII. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS...............................................................30

October 2010: Version 2iii

Revised Guidelines for Flash AppealsRevised Guidelines for Flash Appeals

SUMMARY OF THE FLASH APPEAL

A flash appeal is an inter-agency humanitarian response strategy to a major disaster that requires a coordinated response beyond the capacity of the government plus any single agency. The appeal addresses acute needs for a common planning horizon, normally up to six months.

The Resident and/or Humanitarian Coordinator (RC/HC) triggers the process in consultation with the humanitarian country team (HCT, comprising UN and non-UN partners and actors) and the affected government (though not depending on permission of the government).

The decision to develop a flash appeal is based on a rapid appraisal of a disaster’s scale and severity, compared to available government capacity

The flash appeal outlines roles and responsibilities, specific sectoral response plans, and activities needing funding.

It should be issued, as a rapid first edition, within a week of a triggering event. It is a concise document based on available information and reasonable inference, focusing on

urgent humanitarian needs. (Early recovery projects can be included in this rapid first edition to the extent that they address time-critical needs, have a strong advantage in starting immediately and a rapid impact on affected populations and/or relief activities.)

In view of the haste with which the first edition is developed, its projects can be revised online at any point after publication as more information emerges (i.e. agencies can continually adjust their projects on the Financial Tracking Service (FTS) in consultation with relevant coordination mechanisms).

A scheduled general revision takes place about a month after the appeal’s initial publication to incorporate more complete information, improved and in-depth assessments, and more clearly defined early recovery projects. If considered necessary, the appeal may be developed into or succeeded by a consolidated appeal, or other similar appeal, if an inter-agency response is needed beyond six months.

Flash appeals should include priority projects from all key humanitarian organisations – UN and non-UN – on the ground. It should take into account the actions and plans of entities not in the appeal (for example government, and – usually – the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement).

The Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF), as a funding instrument, does not replace the need for a flash appeal, which is a planning tool. The flash appeal and funding application to CERF are developed simultaneously as parts of the same process.

How to use these guidelines

1. Part One: A substantive and contextual overview of the flash appeal mechanism, and its links with other humanitarian instruments and principles, such as CERF and clusters . This section is aimed primarily at RC/HCs, agency heads, and members of HCTs who need to know more about how flash appeals work.

2. Part Two: Further resources to guide the drafting of flash appeals

Throughout the text, there will be links to the template for an initial flash appeal, which itself incorporates integrated guidance

October 2010: Version 21


OVERVIEW OF BEST PRACTICEPreparedness for a flash appeal (prior to a crisis)Being ready to issue a flash appeal should form part of a HCT’s contingency plans. The following elements, which should all form part of contingency planning, will improve the speed with which the first version of a flash appeal can be produced: Identification of risks and vulnerabilities, including protection concerns; Identification of baseline data (e.g. demographic [gender, age], economic, urban/rural);,

especially regarding at-risk zones or vulnerable populations including internally displaced persons (IDPs]

Pre-contacts with government and other national actors of concern (e.g. national Red Cross/Red Crescent Society);

Agreement with government on what kind and scale of crisis would trigger an international appeal and (since some governments are uncomfortable with international organisations issuing an ‘appeal’ for their country, with its connotation of helplessness) what that appeal should be called;

Pre-formation of clusters, i.e. assignment of roles and responsibilities; Drafting of generic projects at country or regional level, based upon risk and vulnerability

assessments, and in-country humanitarian and government capacity. (Where possible HCTs should prepare indicative cost plans for response activities using the flash appeal project box format, to further save time);

Simulation exercises are recommended, to improve the HCT’s familiarity with response tools and mechanisms.

Producing the appeal (within seven days from the start of a humanitarian crisis) Activate contingency plans. If the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) is not present, assign a focal

point within the HCT for consolidating the production of the flash appeal. Finalise first version of the flash appeal within five days of the triggering event, recalling that

best estimates, reasonable inference, limited but credible assessments rating the severity of the disaster and the magnitude of potential need, are appropriate means of determining needs within that timeframe.

Preliminary funding requirements in this rapid first edition should be commensurately disciplined and conservative. Budgets should be in line with initial information and in-country capacity.

Produce CERF request and flash appeal in parallel. The appeal serves as the contextual analysis for the CERF application, and the catalogue of projects from which the highest-priority projects are nominated for rapid CERF funding. The CERF (funding instrument) does not replace the need for a flash appeal (planning tool).

Revising the appeal (about 4 weeks after issuing the first version) Move to revise appeal using improved information and assessments and completed early

recovery analysis and requirements. This is part of the bargain with donors so that they accept to fund flash appeals that are issued rapidly with skeletal information.

The revision is an opportunity to introduce a fuller range of early recovery projects (which often cannot be assessed or inferred fast enough for the first edition), and to more completely map and divide the labour of covering need, taking government and other actors into account.

Taking into account improved assessments and analysis of the crisis, projects in revisions must be prioritised.

CAP Section is on standby throughout to assist with a range of issues, such as: possible deployment to assist with producing the appeal; advice on best practice; financial tracking; substantive reviewing; liaison with agency headquarters; pre-drafting of background sections of the appeal, based on information sent by the HCT, or

information available from other publicly accessible sources (this assistance would enable in-country staff to focus on other aspects of the appeal and response).



PART ONETHE FLASH APPEAL AS A CONCEPT

SECTION 1: BACKGROUND, POLICY AND PRACTICE ON KEY SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES

What is a flash appeal? The flash appeal is a tool for structuring a coordinated humanitarian response for the first three to six months of a new emergency. The UN RC/HC triggers it in consultation with major stakeholders within two days of a major disaster or in response to an ongoing or slow-onset crisis. It contains an analysis of the context and of humanitarian needs (citing whatever specific needs assessments are available, as well as any other evidence such as informal reports, remote sensing, background data, and inference), response plans (at the general strategic level as well as sector plans including specific proposed projects), and information on roles and responsibilities.

When should it be used?General Assembly Resolution 46/182 on “Strengthening of the coordination of humanitarian emergency assistance of the United Nations” states that “for emergencies requiring a coordinated response, the Secretary-General should ensure that an initial consolidated appeal covering all concerned organisations of the system, prepared in consultation with the affected State, is issued within the shortest possible time and in any event not longer than one week. In the case of prolonged emergencies, this initial appeal should be updated and elaborated within four weeks, as more information becomes available.”

There is neither an exhaustive list of types of emergencies a flash appeal can be used, nor a universal set of thresholds that, when passed, would trigger a flash appeal.1 The key variable here is whether the needs go beyond the ability of the government and any one agency to respond adequately. The triggering event can either be a sudden-onset emergency, such as a cyclone or hurricane

(Madagascar and Myanmar 2008), earthquake (Peru 2008), floods (Ghana 2007 or Bolivia 2008), or a complex political crisis (such as those experienced in Kenya and Georgia in 2008). The flash appeal in these circumstances must be issued within a week of the disaster if it is to be credible and effective.

Equally, the triggering event can be a decision made as a result of worsening conditions in an ongoing or slow-onset crisis such as a drought (Lesotho and Swaziland 2007). The appeal in these situations should be issued within a week of the RC/HC deciding to develop it.

Although the needs arising from slow-onset natural disasters (droughts, and certain kinds of flooding) can be met through a flash appeal, the range of projects and the type of response required can sometimes not be suited to one. The prolonged and sometimes slow worsening of the crisis may make it difficult to pinpoint whether and when to do an appeal. This can be the case especially if the needs are more recovery-based rather than humanitarian or early recovery, or involve funding requests for preparedness. Lastly, needs arising from a regional crisis (such as the same floods affecting several countries) could, in theory, be met through a regional flash appeal although this has, until now, not often been used (Southern Africa 2008 is the exception). One of the main problems with such an approach is procedural: the tight deadline would be difficult to achieve if it is necessary to coordinate regional actors, both in drafting the original appeal and its revision.

Because the appeal’s first edition has to be issued fast, it is acceptable, and sometimes inevitable, that it is based on early estimates, reasonable inference and best guesses, with commensurate focus on urgent humanitarian needs. Given this, appeals and their projects can be revised at any point after the launch as more information emerges (i.e. agencies/organisations can continually adjust their projects on the FTS). There is a scheduled general revision a month after launch to incorporate more complete information and more early recovery projects (especially connecting to government plans as they crystallise), as well as to prioritise (or reprioritise) the projects in the appeal. The flash appeal may be developed into or succeeded by a consolidated appeal, if an inter-agency response is needed beyond six months (see Section 2: Revising flash appeals).

1 The Inter-Agency Standing Committee’s CAP Sub-Working Group has been discussing the issue of thresholds. Please refer to Annex II: Thresholds for Triggering Flash Appeals and ERC message to RC.



The main issue here is that a flash appeal is the key tool that allows humanitarian organisations to respond to an event that surpasses the ability of one agency to respond sufficiently. Major humanitarian disasters and crises require a coordinated response from aid agencies to support those in need in a timely, predictable and accountable way. Additionally, some donors will not commit funds if there is no consolidated response.

Is the affected government’s permission needed for a flash appeal?The short answer to this is ‘no’. GA Resolution 46/182 states only that an appeal should be developed in consultation with the government concerned. A more nuanced response would be that a government implacably opposed to an international response effort, such as the one a flash appeal is designed to assist, could make implementing an appeal very difficult.

In cases where a government is recalcitrant towards an appeal, it is advisable to understand the elements that make up its reluctance. This may include: a perception that the government will suffer a loss of sovereignty or control, or a loss of face (possibly including investor confidence) stemming from their country being the subject of an international appeal; a misunderstanding of the implications of aspects of humanitarian assistance; governmental attitudes towards specific organisations or types of organisations that would join in the appeal; or competition for international funds.

Regarding the issue of loss of face, the image problem of an appeal is often resolved by a simple name change or euphemism – for example “response plan” instead of “flash appeal” (such euphemised names are now permitted by Inter-Agency Standing Committee [IASC] policy). Additionally, it should be noted that many of these issues can be addressed or even averted through pre-disaster preparedness measures such as advocacy and contingency planning that involve the government.

Aside from the issue of “permission”, governments have an important role to play in appeals, commensurate with their lead role in any disaster response. Sector/cluster leads should work in close collaboration with the government; the appeal should map the sectors and areas that the government is covering, and the gaps that are to be filled by international organisations.

Who does what? The RC/HC, with support from OCHA, is responsible for the overall production, content and

quality of the document. In coordinating the process the RC/HC should, in consultation with the Emergency Relief Coordinator (ERC) and with other partners in the HCT, set clear parameters for the scope and size of the appeal. Clear guidance from the beginning in respect to the boundaries of the international response would help in avoiding unrealistic expectations from participating agencies and cluster/sectors, and reduces confusion and delay.2

Cluster/sector leads3 have a key role within the parameters of the appeal set by the RC/HC and HCT: bringing all organisations working significantly in their respective sectors of responsibility into the working group (i.e. the cluster), leading and coordinating the development of response plans, and leading the vetting of projects within their area of activity.

The flash appeal is prepared in consultation with key humanitarian actors, which may include government officials, donors, UN agencies, NGOs, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), the national Red Cross/Red Crescent Society, and other relevant actors.

2 There have been cases where an RC/HC went a step further and also set a ceiling for an appeal’s funding request, for various reasons (often stemming from perceived acceptability to donors). The advantages of making this a standard practice are less clear than those of the more general exercise of setting strategic boundaries, and the IASC as yet has no consensus position on it.3 All “sector”/”cluster” leads have the same responsibilities in preparing flash appeals, irrespective of whether the name sector or cluster is used – see section below on “Flash appeals and the cluster approach ” .



The flash appeal may include projects from UN agencies, international organisations, national and international NGOs (Note: it may include project partnerships with the national Red Cross or Red Crescent Society of the country of operation.4) Government ministries cannot appeal for funds directly in a flash appeal, but can be partners in UN or NGO projects.

See as well Section 3: Timelines and Deadlines for more details on who does what by when.

What is in the flash appeal?The flash appeal document should follow the template for an initial flash appeal (available here: Blank Template for Flash Appeals (July 2010)). Required elements include: a narrative reviewing the context and the national and international response (including funding)

to date; figures on affected populations, including numbers and type of population affected by the

emergency, disaggregated to the extent possible by gender and age, and in any other specific or relevant manner (e.g. number of persons displaced by the disaster, persons affected by region, livelihood, etc.), and specifying what is meant by “affected” in this case;

response plans incorporating information and findings from, for example, any assessments, pre-crisis baseline data (such as that available from government ministries or departments, or international programmes) or contingency plans. Response plans should state the needs, outline the strategy to respond to them, the activities that will be undertaken, and any indicators to measure progress;

a mapping or tabulation of needs and coverage, including coverage by government, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, and international organisations. This can be organised as the HCT sees fit (e.g. by cluster, by region). Note that this goes beyond the usual 3W (Who does What Where) in that it matches coverage with needs;

A summary box for each project.

(Note: Revised flash appeals follow a slightly different template, which will be customised to each country following finalisation of the initial appeal.)

Why issue it quickly and keep it brief? There are good reasons why an initial flash appeal should be issued fast with available information, inference and elemental joint planning, instead of waiting a few weeks until there is better information, detailed assessments and elaborate planning: The humanitarian system, particularly donors, relies on flash appeals as proxies for estimating

the scale, severity, nature and urgency of disasters. If the implementing side of the humanitarian system with all its expertise cannot provide this

overview within a few days, the credibility of and confidence in humanitarian response suffers. Some donors can access emergency funding reserves only, or more easily and quickly, if a

flash appeal has been launched. A rapid flash appeal pre-empts individual agencies’ appeals that they might otherwise feel

obliged to launch. Those solo appeals concern some stakeholders, mainly donors who might see or perceive them as a sign of systemic fragmentation, but also some international partners who might prefer a more coordinated response.

The strategic planning forum that the development of a flash appeal provides – even if the joint planning is elemental in the first days – can produce a more prioritised immediate response than disconnected actions.

Be concise and keep the language simple so that donors respond swiftly whilst the event is still fresh in people’s minds (including the politicians who may control special funding appropriations). Readers (government officials, donors, UN agencies, NGOs, the media, and other stakeholders) need to know what happened, the humanitarian consequences, needs and risks, what the humanitarian response plan is, and the cost. A flash appeal can be as short as ten pages. Use charts and tables to explain 4 The only Red Cross/Crescent National Society that can appeal for funding as a project partner for a UN agency is the National Society of the country of operation. Participating National Societies (PNS) from outside the country of operation must work through the International Federation Appeal, or the ICRC. In principle, the IFRC may participate in (but not appeal through) Flash Appeals in the form of an Annex to the Appeal. In accordance with the Fundamental Principles of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, in particular independence, the IFRC and the ICRC manage their own, separate appeal funding mechanisms. The national Red Cross or Red Crescent Society of the country of operation may become a project partner of the UN, provided that it can adhere to the Fundamental Principles and policies of the International Movement of Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.


http://ochaonline.un.org/humanitarianappeal/webpage.asp?MenuID=12508&Page=1481



issues whenever possible.

What does the appeal’s “duration” mean? Flash appeals have a defined duration so as to provide a common basis for calculating funding requirements and give a time horizon for the response strategy. The duration can always be amended after launch as new information emerges. If the usual maximum duration of six months is chosen, this of course does not mean that all projects must last exactly six months; they last as long as they need to, up to a maximum of six months, and budgets are calculated accordingly.5 Experience shows that the appeal’s duration is often a source of confusion in the pressurised days of appeal development, so the RC/HC should decide early (see timeline below) and communicate clearly what is the unified planning and budgeting horizon for the appeal. The duration can be extended when the flash appeal is revised – either up to the usual maximum of six months, or longer if it is converted into a longer-term appeal, such as a consolidated appeal. (Note that this common planning and budgeting horizon does not mean that projects and expenditure must end at the flash appeal’s six-month mark. The reality is that funding does not arrive immediately, so projects do not start the moment the flash appeal is launched. The specific duration of a grant is agreed between donor and recipient.)

How is the Financial Tracking Service used in flash appeals?The Financial Tracking Service (FTS: http://fts.unocha.org) is a global, real-time database which records all reported international humanitarian aid (including that for NGOs and the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement, bilateral aid, in-kind aid, and private donations). FTS features a special focus on consolidated and flash appeals, because they cover the major humanitarian crises and because their funding requirements are well-defined – which allows FTS to indicate to what extent populations in crisis receive humanitarian aid in proportion to needs. FTS is managed by OCHA. All FTS data are provided by donors or recipient organisations.

FTS is an invaluable tool for HCTs preparing or revising flash appeals. For instance, in the preparation stage it allows HCTs to analyse reported funding and other assistance already being given to the emergency (e.g. through tracking in-kind or bilateral donations), or to compare their emergency to other, similar ones. For revisions, it allows the HCT to review the whole range of projects submitted in the original appeal, and apply different means of analysis – requirements and funding received by clusters/sectors, by location, by priority, or appealing agency; when funding arrived; how funding to projects not included in the original appeal compares to funding to projects in it – and apply this level of detail to in-country knowledge of the emergency’s specific context.

Flash appeals and the Online Project System

The Online Project System (OPS: http://ops.unocha.org) is a system deployed by OCHA which enables agencies to submit their project descriptions and funding needs online. This system became operational for CAPs in November 2008, and was subsequently rolled out for use in flash appeals soon after. Project information presented on OPS is subject to peer review: that is, an agency must submit a project which is vetted by the cluster lead.

Practice and policy now is to use OPS in flash appeals in a two stage process, which correspond to the initial version of a flash appeal and its subsequent revision, as follows: Initial flash appeal: the HCT proceeds with developing the flash appeal as normal, using the

flash appeal template, and with project information inserted into the standard project boxes. o Who does what on OPS? Upon receipt of the final field draft, CAP Section uploads

this project information onto the OPS, from where it is subsequently migrated to FTS allowing funding to be tracked.

o No action is required on OPS at this stage from the HCT and participating organisations.

5 See also the caveat mentioned on page 7 of these guidelines with regard to early recovery projects.


Click here for direct access to the Financial Tracking Service

6


http://ops.unocha.org/

http://fts.unocha.org/



Flash appeal revision: prior to the revision process formally beginning, CAP Section will contact the appeal focal point in-country to brief him/her on the OPS.

o Who does what on OPS? Shortly after the launch of the initial flash appeal, participating agencies will be invited to apply for access to the database where they will find their projects online. Agencies may then revise their existing projects, completing or updating them, add new projects, or withdraw projects which are no longer required.

In situations when flash appeals or euphemised appeals are produced for countries which have CAPs or similar documents (such as for the 2009 Gaza Flash Appeal [linked to the 2009 CAP for the occupied Palestinian territories], the 2010 Niger Emergency Humanitarian Action Plan, or the 2010 Burkina Faso Emergency Humanitarian Action Plan [both linked to the 2010 West Africa CAP]), the general guidance will be to incorporate new or revised projects into the CAP. Although exceptions can be made to this (such as for the 2010 Pakistan Flood Emergency Response Plan), wherever and whenever possible existing appeals should be used.

More detailed guidance on the OPS may be found on the website.

How do flash appeals relate to the Central Emergency Response Fund? The CERF (http://ochaonline.un.org/ CERF ) is a stand-by fund established by the United Nations General Assembly to enable more timely, reliable and equitable humanitarian assistance to those affected by natural disasters and other types of emergency. Only UN organisations and the International Organization for Migration (IOM) can access the CERF grant and loan elements, by mandate of the GA. The CERF is a funding mechanism, pooling resources from donors for humanitarian response, and the flash appeal is the strategic plan and list of projects that CERF (and bilateral donors) should fund.6

Flash appeals are necessary to form a framework of coordinated strategic response, and to obtain funding. CERF can provide seed funds to jump-start critical operations planned in the appeal. The CERF may also allocate further funds in a second allotment if needed, for example if donor response to critical activities in the appeal is inadequate.

Flash appeals and CERF applications should be developed in parallel, with the flash appeal noting the amount committed by CERF (if CERF did so before flash appeal publication7), and CERF kick-starting the response to the flash appeal. The CERF request and the flash appeal belong to the same process of coordinated response, and therefore should be mutually consistent. The information required for both is broadly similar, and if the CERF grant request is submitted first, a large part of the information and analysis submitted to support it is easily transferable to the flash appeal.

Experience to date indicates that the following is the ideal sequencing for flash appeals and CERF requests: RC/HC triggers a coordinated response to a disaster or emergency, starting with rapid appraisal

of scale and severity, and assignment of roles and responsibilities. RC/HC determines as soon as possible whether the event is likely to be of a scale that requires

an inter-agency response (exceeding the capacity of any single agency and the Government concerned).

If an inter-agency response is required, the RC/HC consults all relevant partners at the country level, triggers a coordinated response starting with rapid needs assessments, and assigns roles and responsibilities, including designation of cluster/sector leads in consultation with the ERC.

The RC/HC then triggers a flash appeal. The RC/HC leads the HCT to produce as soon as

6 Please refer to the CERF Application Template available on the CERF website.7 However, the CERF Secretariat prefers that flash appeals not mention dollar amounts of CERF requests, or of indicative envelopes expressed by the ERC to RC/HCs, because doing so before the amounts are committed creates a specific expectation that CERF may not be able to fulfil. If CERF funds are already committed before the flash appeal is published, however, the flash appeal should cite them in detail.


Click here for direct access to the Online Project System

http://ochaonline.un.org/CERF

http://ochaonline.un.org/CERF

http://ochaonline.un.org/cerf/HowtoApply/CERFGuidance/tabid/5818/language/en-US/Default.aspx

http://ochaonline.un.org/humanitarianappeal/webpage.asp?Page=1898





http://ops.unocha.org/


possible a clear articulation of humanitarian needs, priority sectors for response, sectoral response plans including specific projects, and roles and responsibilities (these are the same as the main components of a flash appeal).

If funding is likely to be inadequate, the RC/HC may suggest to the ERC that an initial CERF funding ‘envelope’ be provided, based on the best estimate of the scale of the emergency and the immediate funding needs. The provision of CERF funding would be contingent upon the quality of the grant request, which should focus on under-resourced core humanitarian activities.

Based on this draft response strategy (flash appeal), the HC/RC should determine the CERF funding priorities and request clusters/sectors to review the critical needs and implementation capacity and identify/vet projects that fill the highest priority needs. The highest priority projects should be presented to the RC/HC for approval. The RC/HC should send the selected proposals as a package to the ERC, with a copy to the CERF Secretariat. The grant request should be in line with the allocation announced by the ERC and in accordance with CERF application guidelines. The process for developing a grant request should be evidence-based, inclusive and transparent. NGOs and other humanitarian partners should be involved.

The RC/HC immediately sends whichever is ready first – the CERF request to the CERF Secretariat, or the flash appeal to CAP Section in Geneva – and completes the other as soon as possible. (Normally, the CERF request package takes less time to complete than the flash appeal, but this flexible method allows for exceptions).

Note: FTS needs to be up-to-date to reflect the funding situation of each project. The CERF Secretariat will review proposed projects against FTS data.

How do flash appeals and early recovery interact?Well-prioritised early recovery (ER) interventions address time-critical needs and contribute to saving lives, although not immediately. In addition, they hasten the end of aid dependence, thus freeing humanitarian resources that can be allocated to other outstanding life-saving actions. Donors may be averse to seeing heavy ER funding requests in rapid first editions of flash appeals, feeling that they can justify funding immediately life-saving actions even if the supporting information is sketchy, but cannot similarly justify extensive ER actions at that stage. They do however allow some scope for ER in the first edition if the nature of the need is obvious and there is a clear advantage to starting an ER action soon (for example an imminent planting season). Common sense and emerging policy thus suggest that ER projects can be proposed in a flash appeal’s rapid first edition, to the extent that they: 1. address time-critical needs that are obvious or have otherwise been reliably assessed (including

through reasonable inference); 2. have a strong rationale for beginning sooner rather than later and a rapid impact on the affected

populations and/or relief activities; and,3. can preferably be completed within the flash appeal’s usual six-month planning horizon.

Essential ‘start-up’ costs for ER (to support coordination, rapid assessments and initial planning) can also be included.

Additional ER projects, based on subsequent and more thorough assessments of ER needs, e.g. a Post-Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA) in natural disasters,8 can be included in the flash appeal revision (hence a phased approach). The presentation of ER projects and requirements in both the flash appeal and its revision is based on the following key principles: Early recovery needs and projects should be mainstreamed, to the extent possible, within their

respective cluster/sectors; The areas that fall outside of the main clusters/sectors (such as governance, rule of law, non-

agricultural livelihoods, land & property, reintegration, basic infrastructure, etc.) would be presented in a section on ER, together with the essential early recovery ‘start-up’ costs.

8 United Nations Agencies – led by UNDP as Chair of the global CWGER –, the World Bank and the European Commission (EC) have committed to an integrated approach to Multi-Stakeholder Post-Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA) and the development of a Recovery Framework (RF) in the context of natural disasters. Ideally, a PDNA should be conducted when a revised Flash Appeal is projected beyond six months for the RF to identify recovery requirements in the humanitarian context (i.e. early recovery) as the beginning of the recovery process.


Click here for more information on flash appeals and CERF

8

http://cerf.un.org/


Further and more specific guidance on this ‘phased approach’ is included in a document that has been developed by the inter-agency Cluster Working Group on Early Recovery (CWGER) and has also received the endorsement of the IASC CAP Sub-Working Group.9

It should be noted that denying the opportunity to appeal for ER activities that might need a swift start but also a longer implementation timeframe (over six months) could impede an effective response that can truly meet the needs of the affected populations. Therefore, should circumstances so require, the six-month implementation requirement might be relaxed – particularly when the flash appeal is revised.

Whilst ER projects in flash appeals may sometimes be perceived as ‘non-humanitarian’, since most of them do not entail ‘life-saving’ activities, this is an erroneous perception. Prioritised ER interventions do in fact address time-critical needs and may certainly be life-saving in the longer term, if not necessarily immediately, including by hastening the end of aid dependence (which allows donors to re-direct humanitarian resources towards other life-saving activities). In addition, they contribute to finding durable solutions for disaster-induced displacement.

Flash appeals and the cluster approachThe cluster approach should be used in all contingency planning for new emergencies, as per the 2007 IASC Contingency Planning Guidelines. The IASC Guidance Note on the cluster approach also states that “In the event of a sudden major new emergency requiring a multi-sectoral response with the participation of a wide range of international humanitarian actors, the cluster approach should be used from the start in planning and organising the international response.” Establishment of clear sectors, with clear cluster leads, at the outset of an emergency, should help to improve efficiency in putting together the flash appeal.10

While the application of the cluster approach in a country with little or no humanitarian tradition or CAP process might be challenging, it should not delay the production of an initial flash appeal. In some cases, the role of clusters may be much more important during the stage of flash appeal revision. The disaster and the flash appeal should be a signal that clusters need to be activated to permit a coherent response including revision of the flash appeal. Better still would be for HCTs to consult government in advance, as part of disaster risk management (DRM) and contingency planning, and decide beforehand which clusters should be in place as a preparedness measure, or be activated after a disaster. The cluster approach also offers a good opportunity for the HCT to consult government counterparts as part of DRM and contingency planning, to ensure good coordination and synergy in the event of a disaster.

The cluster approach does not mandate new coordination structures or groupings: it mandates an enhanced approach to sectoral organisation. It should be applied to existing structures as much as possible. Clusters thus strengthen sector working groups; they enhance sectors by mandating a structure of accountability and mutual obligation, a provider of last resort, and clear goals. It is irrelevant whether HCTs use the terms clusters, sectors or working groups; it is the substance of the cluster approach that is important.11

Lastly, a cluster lead does not have to be a UN agency. It should be whatever agency has the

9 Including Early Recovery in Flash Appeals: A Phased Approach, CWGER/CAP SWG, January 2009.10 For specific guidance in using the cluster approach in emergencies, please refer to Section 6 of the Guidance Note on Using the Cluster Approach to Strengthen Humanitarian Response (a link to this document is available in Annex I).11 Some HCTs prefer to speak of “Clusters/Sectors” and “cluster leads”, while others prefer to stick to the more traditional terminology of “sectors”, “sectoral groups” and “sector leads” (or in some cases, “working groups”, “thematic groups” or “task forces”). It should be left to HCTs to decide on appropriate terminology for their country, depending on the working language and agency preferences. To ensure coherence, standard terminology should be used within each country and similar standards should be applied to all the key sectors or areas of humanitarian activity. There should be no differentiation between “Clusters/Sectors” and “sectors”. (However, HCTs not formally adopting the cluster approach should not call their sector working groups “clusters,” because that term implies formal responsibilities on the part of cluster leads.)


Click here for the CWGER guidelines on early recovery specifically in flash appeals, and here for the guidance note on early recovery

http://www.humanitarianreform.org/humanitarianreform/Portals/1/cluster%20approach%20page/Introduction/IASCGUIDANCENOTECLUSTERAPPROACH.pdf

http://www.humanitarianreform.org/humanitarianreform/Portals/1/cluster%20approach%20page/clusters%20pages/Early%20R/ER%20in%20Flash%20Appeals%20-%20Phased%20Approach%20-%20Endorsed%20by%20CWGER%20&%20CAP%20SWG.doc

http://www.humanitarianreform.org/humanitarianreform/Default.aspx?tabid=80


technical and organisational capacity to lead the sector working group, as identified by the HC and HCT. Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) lead or co-lead clusters in several countries. There is a group of Global Cluster Leads who provide normative guidance and stand-by capacity, but even these leads are not all UN – they include IOM, and IFRC as a convenor.

Flash appeals and contingency planning12

Contingency planning can be used to plan for all types of emergencies including complex emergencies, natural and environmental disasters and other significant crises. Inter-agency contingency planning should focus on situations in which the scale and impact of the potential emergency requires the concerted action of a number of agencies/organisations. Inter-agency contingency planning should address response actions and coordination needs at multiple levels – regional, national, sub-national and local. Contingency planning is a process that includes: analysing potential emergencies; analysing the potential humanitarian impact and consequences of identified emergencies; establishing clear objectives, strategies, policies and procedures and articulating critical actions

that must be taken to respond to an emergency; and, ensuring that agreements are recorded and necessary actions are taken to enhance

preparedness.

Table-top exercises (including rapid appraisal, simulation exercises designed to improve the organisation and capacity of clusters, and flash appeal/CERF preparation) may improve country-level contingency planning.13 Whenever possible, inter-agency contingency planning should involve the government as they hold the primary responsibility for providing humanitarian assistance to people in need.14 Inter-agency contingency planning should be based on knowledge of the planning, capacities and systems of national and local authorities and guided by principles including neutrality and impartiality.

These processes are similar, if not identical, to those that must be undertaken to put together a flash appeal. The added advantage is that if much of this has been done for contingency planning, then the flash appeal will benefit enormously, particularly in those countries with little or no humanitarian capacity or experience, or with no OCHA presence. Baseline data on demographics, risk and vulnerability mapping, and coordination mechanisms will all be available. Going further still, a generic or pre-prepared flash appeal could ideally be part of the contingency plan itself, based upon an agreed analysis of the most likely risks to the country in question, and how international humanitarian organisations could best respond.

Flash appeals and non-governmental organisations

As RC/HCs assume a greater role in the production of flash appeals, they should ensure that NGOs participate not only in assessments and prioritisation of action, but also in appeal drafting and project inclusion. Furthermore, cluster leads should register all funding needs of all cluster partners, including NGOs. This responsibility must be communicated clearly, by the RC/HC to the HCT, in particular to the cluster leads, and from higher if necessary, to avoid UN-centric flash appeals wherever possible.

12 Specific reference for some of the material for this section from the IASC Contingency Planning Guidelines for Humanitarian Assistance, November 2007, pp. 8 & 10 (a link to this document is available in Annex I).13 Recent good practice on this comes from the OCHA Regional Office for West Africa, where a series of flash appeal simulations, involving HCTs operating in a variety of scenarios, took place in 2008 and 2009.14 “Each State has the responsibility first and foremost to take care of the victims of natural disasters and other emergencies occurring on its territory. Hence, the affected State has the primary role in the initiation, organisation, coordination, and implementation of humanitarian assistance within its territory.” GA Resolution 46/182.


Click here for more information on the cluster approach

Click here for more information on contingency planning

10

http://oneresponse.info/Coordination/ClusterApproach/publicdocuments/GCL%20Contact%20List-2%20Feb%202010.doc

http://oneresponse.info/Coordination/ClusterApproach/Pages/Cluster%20Approach.aspx

http://www.humanitarianinfo.org/iasc/pageloader.aspx?page=content-subsidi-swg_preparedness-default&mainbodyid=&publish


The RC/HC should also endeavour to ensure that NGO participation in a flash appeal not be an onerous process, especially considering that many national or local NGOs do not necessarily have extra staff to spare from operations to represent them (for example at cluster meetings and flash appeal discussions) and may not be familiar with global appeal or cluster procedures. This same consideration related to staffing and capacity should also be given to UN or other international agencies that might have a limited presence in the affected country. A list of frequently asked questions concerning NGOs is annexed to these guidelines.

Flash appeals and CAP Section Last, but not least... what can CAP Section do for you in the preparation of a flash appeal? CAP Section is available before and during emergencies to assist with a range of issues, such as: possible deployment of CAP Section staff to assist with producing the appeal; advice on best practice; financial tracking and financial analysis of funding; substantive reviewing of the draft appeal; liaison with headquarters of agencies participating in the appeal; pre-drafting of background sections of the appeal, based on information sent by the HCT, or

information available from other publicly accessible sources (this assistance would enable in-country staff to focus on other aspects of the appeal and response);

uploading of projects onto OPS (for initial appeals) and technical support and assistance at the time of revision;

preparation of customised templates for revised flash appeals.


Click here for access to the CAP Section’s website

http://ochaonline.un.org/humanitarianappeal/webpage.asp?Nav=_docs_en&Site=_docs&Lang=en


SECTION 2: REVISING FLASH APPEALS

Why revise a flash appeal?Donors accept that there is a trade-off between speed and precision. Because the appeal’s first edition has to be issued fast, it inevitably is based on early estimates and inference, and focuses on urgent humanitarian needs (with early recovery proposals limited to those that can be assessed fast enough for the first edition and that have a strong rationale for beginning immediately). Because of this, agencies and clusters can modify their project funding requests by continually updating projects online on FTS at any point after the appeal launch as more information emerges and needs change. This update can be done, in consultation with relevant coordination mechanisms such as the cluster lead or with the RC/HC (and with the latter’s approval), simply by informing the OCHA CAP Section ([email protected]) of funding received and if any projects change.

However to assimilate emerging new information, ensure a strategic response thereto, and justify the funding requests, the HCT must do a scheduled general revision about a month after the initial launch. Another incentive to revise flash appeals is that, according to the ‘phased approach’ guiding the inclusion of early recovery in Flash Appeals (as outlined in the section on early recovery and flash appeals), the revision provides the opportunity introduce a broader range of early recovery projects – some of which could not be assessed or inferred fast enough for the first edition. In addition, it should be recalled that early recovery priorities are often linked to – and complement – governmental initial recovery plans, which usually take some time to be elaborated in coordination with the international responses.

Purposes of flash appeal revisionsIn a flash appeal revision, the HCT aims to: present the most recent and analysed assessment information available (e.g. joint or cluster-

based assessments, or information on the government's response which, presumably, would have evolved since the start of the emergency) highlighting, if any, the gaps in response;

outline progress made in achieving the common humanitarian action plan as set out in the first draft and report findings to stakeholders;

determine whether or not the agreed strategy is having the desired impact, and if necessary change the strategy to adapt to new conditions;

update the cluster/sector response plans and their portfolios of projects – adding, modifying or deleting them as appropriate, taking into account changes in the strategy and funding received, and incorporating organisations and projects that were not incorporated in the rapid first edition;

reprioritise humanitarian response activities and projects (see below on Revisions and Prioritisation);

analyse funding, in particular funding given to the emergency outside the appeal; advocate for donor support.

Note as well that the flash appeal may be developed into or succeeded by a consolidated appeal, or other similar appeal, if an inter-agency response is needed beyond six months. Such a scenario should be amongst those considered at the time of revision. 15 Equally, a HCT may decide that the unfolding of the emergency is either not as serious as originally thought, or perhaps is unfolding as predicted, and that in both cases no further assistance is required other than that requested in the original appeal. In this case, a ‘light’ revision may be envisaged. This would simply: update key contextual parts of the appeal (executive summary, context, humanitarian needs

and consequences) with any new relevant information; this is important to do, because no matter if the emergency is following a stable trajectory or even declining in severity, there will be new information available (such as from more recent assessments, or from government sources) that will support this assertion and justify the original funding request;

confirm the original strategic assumptions as still valid; update response plans and projects as or if needed.

15 Two recent examples of this come from Kenya and Myanmar: both initial flash appeals were developed respectively into nine-month and one-year appeals.


mailto:[email protected]


Who does what?As with the initial drafting of the flash appeal, many of the responsibilities are fundamentally the same, with some aspects acquiring or requiring greater responsibility or emphasis: The RC/HC, supported by OCHA, is responsible for the revision; Cluster/sector leads have a pivotal role: their responsibility is to review their response plan and

reconfirm that all project proposals counted in their sector of the flash appeal are still relevant (if not, the proposing organisation should either delete or revise them), and that all suitable proposals are included (especially NGO proposals);16

Revision discussions should include all of the organisations engaged in humanitarian action (e.g. UN agencies, donors, and host authorities, NGOs, the ICRC and IFRC), and not just those involved in the appeal itself. This is so that the revision can present as complete a picture as possible of the context and response to date, and so assist in identifying priority areas for action, and overlaps or possible gaps in response;

Agencies involved in revisions should ensure that their headquarters’ colleagues are involved in the process and are given an early look at new or revised projects during the revision process, to minimise misunderstandings and last-minute changes. In the interests of ensuring programmatic quality, appealing agencies may wish to consult the Global Cluster Leads.

See as well the timeline in Section 3 on revising appeals for more details on who does what by when.

What is in the revision?The revision follows the same structure as the original flash appeal, with additions to the context and response plans as necessary. It is not necessary to repeat everything in the original appeal, except to summarise key points. Elements required include the following: An updated narrative part reviewing the context and the national and international response

(including funding) to date; Updated figures on affected populations, including to the extent possible improved numbers of

the range and type of population affected by the emergency disaggregated by sex and age (including specific needs for women, girls, boys and men);

Updated response plans incorporating data and findings from any new assessments (which should be clearly referenced in the text). There should already have been clarification on whether the revision still needs to be primarily life-saving or can be more holistic (i.e. an increase in early recovery projects that are based on subsequent more thorough assessments of early recovery needs);

A clear mapping or tabulation of needs and coverage, including coverage by the government of the concerned country, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement,17 and international organisations. This can be organised as the HCT sees fit (e.g. by cluster, by region). Note that this goes beyond the usual 3W (Who does What Where) in that it matches coverage with needs;

Summarising outputs achieved to date vs. the targets or priorities stated in the original appeal (e.g. in tabular form);18

Expanded cluster response plans (using the customised template which CAP Section will provide each country team following the finalisation of an initial flash appeal);

Expanded projects, using the OPS.

16 Humanitarian projects already funded but not yet counted in the flash appeal should be counted in it as part of the revision (as long as they are consistent with the appeal); this helps to accurately measure funding according to need, and to broaden the response and make it as comprehensive as possible. This should be done in consultation with the cluster lead and with the agencies’/NGO’s agreement.17 After consultation with the concerned components of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.18 Note that impact analysis is unlikely to be feasible one month after the disaster. Outputs are the actions completed to date by the project (number of boreholes drilled, number of children vaccinated, etc). Impact is the effect on the affected population (increase in litres per person per day of household consumption of potable water, reduction in measles incidence, reduction in gender-based violence in camps, etc). By their nature, outputs are much easier to measure. By the time of a revision, impact will likely be hard to measure (although it might be easier in some cases and for some clusters/sectors), so output reporting is sufficient for revisions. However, the output reporting should be specific and comprehensive.


Click here for more information on the Global Clusters

http://oneresponse.info/Coordination/ClusterApproach/Pages/Cluster%20Approach.aspx


Analysis of funding, including what has been given to activities and projects not included in the appeal, using the affected country’s page on FTS. Funding analysis is useful as a way of spotting potential gaps in the response. It is also a useful exercise to try and capture funding outside the appeal (for example to NGOs) that corresponds to its objectives and to bring it in. In the build-up to the revision, funding analysis should be done by individual agencies on their own funding, and whenever possible by the cluster/sector leads so as to track overall response to the appeal. This can be done through direct contacts with agencies who are receiving funding and ascertaining whether they would consider bringing their projects into the appeal.

Revisions and prioritisation Selection means selection of projects for inclusion in the CAP, after vetting to make sure they are suitable. Prioritisation means differentiating the selected projects to ensure that donors cover the most urgent ones first. Prioritisation is an essential piece of the revision, should be conducted at the country level, and should not be regarded as optional. The RC/HC has the overall responsibility of ensuring that the HCT and the clusters/sectors agree clear common criteria by which projects or thematic areas are prioritised. The cluster/sector leads are responsible for ensuring completion of this piece of the revision, and are expected to work with the entire cluster/sector in completing this task.

Prioritisation plays an added role in the construction of flash appeals because of their two-step process (initial appeal, followed by its revision). Whereas it is understood that a prioritisation exercise would be difficult for the rapid first version of a flash appeal, donors expect projects listed in a revision to be prioritised as part of the bargain for agreeing to fund appeals issued within a week of a disaster (and thus whose assessment might largely be based upon inference),. This enables them to ensure that the most important needs and projects are covered, given limited funds. It also allows for HCTs which have prioritised their projects to hold donors to account for the funding, or lack thereof, committed to them. In prioritising, flash appeals are following the overall trend in humanitarian appeals of having, at a minimum, two tiers of prioritisation. (If priorisation per se is too contentious, the HCT might use a euphemised option of ‘categorisation’.)

Though most life-saving projects are likely to be top-priority, not all top-priority projects have to be directly life-saving. The specific context of an emergency will often determine the priorities assigned to projects. They can instead enable other top-priority projects (e.g. joint logistics or telecommunications projects); reduce aid dependence or facilitate access to the affected populations (objectives pursued by key early recovery projects); avert harm in a time-critical way (e.g. animal vaccination projects); or facilitate key protection and advocacy activities (such as education projects). The chosen scheme should consider whatever the most important factors are in a specific crisis. Those could, for example, include: coordination, assessment and planning (pre-conditions to a coherent and targeted response); continued emphasis on humanitarian relief vs. increased early recovery/transition assistance; geographical areas or particular target groups; pre-selecting projects that meet the CERF life-saving criterion; time-bound projects (e.g. because of the agricultural season, because of the approach of

winter); projects aimed at facilitating access to affected populations (e.g. rubble removal) or at reducing

aid dependence (e.g. distribution of seeds and tools, etc.); if CERF funding is allocated, projects designated as top priority and which are likely to be under-

resourced, should be proposed.

Each project should be marked with its priority designation in the document. FTS also records and displays each project’s priority rating, which is a useful tool for advocacy in that it makes clear whether donors have managed to fund the top priority projects. Further material on prioritisation can be found in Annex III: Examples of prioritisation, and on the CAP Section’s website.


Click here for best practice in flash appeals and CAPs

14




SECTION 3: TIMELINES AND DEADLINES

Suggested timeline and workflow for producing and preparing a flash appeal

The following is a suggested timeline including the steps needed to enable a flash appeal to be developed within the required 5-7 days following a sudden onset disaster, or other triggering event. Please feel free to adapt this as necessary, adding the appropriate dates in the left-hand columns.

Day 1

Flash appeal process triggered by the UN RC/HC, in consultation with the HCT. The RC/HC in consultation with the HCT assigns one organisation to lead and coordinate

the response in each priority sector or area of activity (e.g. cluster/sector leads). If there is no OCHA presence in the affected country, the RC/HC assigns an appeal focal

point for consolidating inputs from agencies in the field. The government of the affected country is consulted (though its permission is not needed

for a flash appeal).

Day 2

The RC/HC communicates the appeal’s overall direction, strategy, and criteria for selection of projects to the HCT, in particular to the cluster leads.

Rapid needs assessments or appraisals begin (if required). All needs assessments are to be reported to relevant cluster/sector leads.

Each cluster/sector group meets at the national level to map capacity and assign roles and responsibilities within the sector or area of activity.

The IASC CAP Sub-working Group or other HQ-level taskforce establishes regular teleconferences to coordinate any HQ level issues if required.

Day 3

RC/HC’s team (including OCHA if present) drafts general sections of appeal document. RC/HC decides on appeal duration and communicates this clearly to the HCT.

Relevant organisations in each cluster/sector meet to analyse needs assessment information; agree on general response strategy; review and select their members’ proposed projects; review pre-crisis baseline information (e.g. from contingency plans); establish parameters for use of information available through inference and reasonable estimation.

Cluster/sector leads coordinate and facilitate the consensus building on project inclusion, draft response plan section, incorporate the selected projects into the response plan section, and forward to OCHA or other designated focal point.

OCHA/focal point compiles these with general sections to produce assembled appeal draft.

Day 4

RC/HC and HCT approve final field draft of the appeal and sends to OCHA CAP Section (Geneva), including cover photo (with credit).

(Note: once the RC/HC and HCT have sent the document to Geneva, they cannot make further changes before publication. They will be consulted, however, if agency headquarters request any significant changes.)

END OF DIRECT FIELD INVOLVEMENT IN DRAFTING APPEAL.

START OF REVIEW PERIOD AT OCHA AND HQs OF IASC ORGANISATIONS PARTICIPATING IN THE APPEAL

Day 1 (of receiving final draft)

CAP Section circulates final field draft to agency HQs, which have 24 hours to return comments on the document.

Final comments from IASC headquarters due. OCHA-HQ Desk Officer incorporates and reconciles HQs' comments, and returns

document to CAP Section.Day 2 (of receiving final draft)

CAP Section performs final substantive review, style-checks, uploads project information onto FTS, and formats the document.

The appeal is finalised and published: if a launch is planned this takes place at identified time/place(s).

NB: References to “OCHA” mean the OCHA office in-country

Notes There is a difference between ‘finalising’ an appeal (publishing it) and ‘launching’ it (an event):

not all appeals are launched, although all are finalised. Some appeals are launched in the field, some in Geneva/NY, and some in multiple locations.

Scheduling launches: experience has shown that a launch meeting must NOT be scheduled either at HQ or in the field until the final field draft of an appeal is received in Geneva, and CAP



Section has been able to verify the content and quality, otherwise the final document may not be ready for the launch.

Printing: unless otherwise specified or required, initial flash appeals are not printed by CAP Section other than for launch events (if one is organised).

Once the final field draft is gone from the field, any last minute changes must go to appealing agencies’ IASC HQ reviewers or the appropriate desk officer involved in the appeal process.

Definitions Final field draft: the final draft of an appeal that has been approved by the

Resident/Humanitarian Coordinator (or their designate), and which has been sent to CAP Section. Once a final field draft has been sent, no further changes will be authorised to the text from the field without first checking/clearing it with CAP Section, or following a specific CAP Section request to do so.

Finalising an appeal: the process by which a final field draft is reviewed by the IASC CAP Sub-Working Group, OCHA CRD, and CAP Section. The review involves verification by the HQs of participating IASC agencies of the text and projects, submission of corrections/amendments, and the final formatting, style checking, and financial review by CAP Section.

Publishing an appeal: once a draft has been finalised by CAP Section, it is sent to member states and posted to Reliefweb, and to www.humanitarianappeal.net. At that point, the appeal is considered published, and may be used or referred to officially.

Launching an appeal: a formal event whereby a published appeal is presented, usually to member states and other interested parties. In NY and Geneva, launches are usually organised by OCHA (either by the Coordination Response Division (CRD) in NY, or by the Geographical Coordination and Monitoring Section (GCMS) in Geneva). The organisation of local launches is at the discretion of the country office, but they must be coordinated with CRD/GCMS, and the material used (i.e. presentation of the appeal, briefing documents, maps) should be the same/not contradict information given at Geneva/NY launches.


http://www.humanitarianappeal.net/


Suggested timeline and workflow for revising flash appeals

The following is a suggested timeline including the steps needed to enable a revision.

(Dates) till (Dates)Flash appeal is launched

Ensuing two-three weeksFlash appeal implementation begins: evolution of crisis/disaster is tracked, and progress of projects monitored.

Stock-taking exercise within the HCT beginsConsultations begin taking place on the evolution of the crisis since the launch of the appeal; funding to appeal projects is tracked; analysis of crisis and response deepens; clusters/sectors track progress of their specific objectives.

These steps are proposed in the order in which they often occur in the field, and may take place within individual clusters/sectors. For the point regarding the HCT, strategic level decisions should, ideally, be made in a dedicated HCT meeting or in a workshop (or similar) environment

In preparation for the revision, the HCT, in consultation with the relevant authorities and donors, reviews and updates needs analysis, strategic priorities, objectives, and changes in key monitoring indicators; agrees on general boundaries of humanitarian action for remainder of the appeal timeline (or beyond, if expansion of current activities is called for): agrees with donors and other stakeholders a plan for needs assessment and analysis for the revision or expansion.Cluster/sector working groups review sectoral objectives and update as needed; review each project in the flash appeal and add, modify, or delete as appropriate, and review official FTS funding tables and communicate any corrections to [email protected], including use of flexible funds; compile reports on outputs, and impact assessment if available, and summarise for inclusion in concept documents or revision itselfFollowing consultations, RC/HC, in consultation with the cluster/sector leads, sets a date for completion of the revision, and appoints focal point within the HCT to oversee the process. To meet that deadline, a workflow or calendar of steps must be elaborated and agreed upon depending upon context (as illustrated below).OPS: Encourage UN agencies and NGOs that have not registered yet on OPS to do so (http://ocha.unog.ch/OPS). A deadline for uploading new projects/revising projects on OPS is set: after that date, no projects should be eligible for cluster/sector review. (Should the HCT so wish, CAP Section can post this deadline on OPS directly for all participating organisations to see.)

Revision timetable set (following dates are suggestive, and not prescriptive)

1-4 days

Cluster/sector working groups draft sector inputs, while OCHA or other focal point drafts rest of document (executive summary, context, response to date, strategic priorities, etc).OPS: Organisations develop their project revision (full project sheet) or new project proposals in collaboration with their HQ and start uploading them to OPS for cluster/sector review.

Day 4 Deadline for cluster/sector working groups to submit inputs to OCHA or other focal point.

Days 5-6 OCHA or focal point compiles draft of revision.

Days 5-6OPS: Cluster/sector groups peer review the projects revisions and new proposals saved in OPS, select those that meet selection criteria, prioritise among projects, etc. Organisations amend their projects on-line according to cluster/sector lead recommendation.

Day 7 OPS: deadline for cluster/sector leads to click ’APPROVE’ on OPS project revisions or new projects uploaded in OPS.

Days 7-8 RC/HC distributes the draft to the HCT. These have two full working days to read the draft and consult their headquarters to discuss the draft.

Day 9 Deadline for HCT comments on draft to be sent to the OCHA field office or focal point.

Days 9-10 OCHA or focal point incorporates comments in consultation with the HCT and sends new draft to the RC/HC.


http://ocha.unog.ch/OPS/



OPS: Cluster/sector leads do final review of projects, and approve them.

Day 11RC/HC clears final field draft and sends it to OCHA’s CAP Section. (Note: If the RC/HC is absent on this date, s/he must empower the deputy or OIC to approve and send the document, on time.)

Day 11

OPS: For the HC to review and approve all projects, they have to be in ‘APPROVED BY CLUSTER’ status in OPS. The HC reviews/approves projects. After this step, projects can no longer be edited by the field.(NOTE: during the HC review phase, it is advisable for agencies/cluster leads to stand by with access to OPS should last-minute changes to projects be required).

END OF DIRECT FIELD INVOLVEMENT IN DRAFTING REVISED APPEAL.

START OF REVIEW PERIOD AT OCHA AND HQs OF IASC ORGANISATIONS PARTICIPATING IN THE APPEAL

Following dates are suggestive, and not prescriptive

Days 1-5 (of receiving final draft: precise timeline to be determined prior to receiving final field draft)

CAP Section circulates final field draft to agency HQs, which have one (or more if necessary) working days to return comments on the document. Agencies’ HQs should review projects in OPS and insert corrections if requiredOPS: CAP Section moves all projects from ‘APPROVED BY CLUSTER’ to ‘HQ REVIEW’Final comments from HQs of IASC organisations due.OPS: Agency HQs review projects. Once completed, projects move to ‘OCHA HQ’ phase. After this date projects cannot be edited by Agency HQs.OCHA-HQ Desk Officer incorporates and reconciles HQs' comments, and returns document to CAP Section. OCHA –HQ Desk Officer insert changes in OPS projects if necessary. Verify whether projects have been substantially changed after HQ review. If substantive changes in project scope or budget or new proposal have been submitted at HQ level, the OCHA desk Officer consult the HC for final review of agencies HQ changes.OPS: OCHA desk officer reviews projects.

Days 6-7 (of receiving final draft)

CAP Section performs final substantive review, style-checks, and formats revision.OPS: CAP Section finalises projects on OPS, and moves them into ‘PUBLISHED BY CAP’. At this stage, only CAP Section can still access and edit projects. Prior to finalising the revision, projects are migrated from OPS to FTS, where the new project information will be publicly accessible.

The revision is finalised: if a launch is planned this takes place at identified time/place(s).



PART TWOFURTHER RESOURCES

ANNEX I. SELECTED GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS AND OTHER RESOURCES

Clusters/sectors IASC Guidance Note on Using the Cluster Approach to Strengthen Humanitarian Response,24 November 2006

IASC Generic Terms of Reference for Sector/Cluster Leads at the Country Level

Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) Guidance on the loan and grant component may be found at What is the CERF? on the Fund’s website

Contingency planningIASC Contingency Planning Guidelines for Humanitarian Assistance, (Revised version),December 2007

Disaster Preparedness and ResponseDisaster Preparedness for Effective Response - Guidance and Indicator Package for Implementing Priority Five of the Hyogo Framework, October 2008

OCHA Disaster Response Preparedness Toolkit

SPHERE

IASC Civil-Military Guidelines and References for Complex Emergencies, January 2009

Early recovery Cluster Working Group on Early Recovery (CWGER) and CAP SWG: Including Early Recovery in Flash Appeals: A Phased Approach, January 2009

CWGER: Guidance Note on Early Recovery, April 2008

ProtectionIASC Operational Guidelines and Field Manual on Human Rights Protection in situations of Natural Disaster, (Pilot Version) March 2008

IASC Gender Handbook in Humanitarian ActionWomen, Girls, Boys, and Men: Different Needs - Equal Opportunities, December 2006

Gender-based Violence ProgrammingIASC Guidelines for Gender-based Violence Interventions in Humanitarian Settings, September 2005

Mental Health and Psychosocial Support


http://www.humanitarianreform.org/humanitarianreform/Portals/1/cluster%20approach%20page/clusters%20pages/Gender/tfgender_GBVGuidelines2005.pdf

http://www.humanitarianreform.org/Default.aspx?tabid=656

http://www.humanitarianinfo.org/iasc/downloaddoc.aspx?docID=4503&type=pdf


http://www.humanitarianreform.org/humanitarianreform/Portals/1/cluster%20approach%20page/clusters%20pages/Early%20R/ER_Internet.pdf




http://www.sphereproject.org/

http://ocha.unog.ch/drptoolkit/



http://www.humanitarianinfo.org/iasc/pageloader.aspx?page=content-products-products&sel=13

http://ochaonline.un.org/cerf/WhatistheCERF/RapidResponsegrants/tabid/2841/language/en-US/Default.aspx

http://www.humanitarianreform.org/humanitarianreform/Portals/1/cluster%20approach%20page/Generic%20Terms%20of%20Reference%20for%20Sector.doc

http://www.humanitarianreform.org/humanitarianreform/Portals/1/cluster%20approach%20page/Introduction/IASCGUIDANCENOTECLUSTERAPPROACH.pdf


IASC Guidelines on Mental Health and Psychosocial Support in Emergency Settings, December 2008




ANNEX II. THRESHOLDS FOR TRIGGERING FLASH APPEALS

Thresholds for triggering flash appeals and

ERC message to RC

IASC CAP SWG – June 2007

1. BackgroundTo date there are no clear-cut criteria or benchmarks for triggering Flash Appeals. Having a clear-cut decision on this could help RCs and HCTs in issuing timely flash appeals. As an example, in recent appeals history, several HCTs issued their flash appeals more than a month after the disaster, contrary to IASC guidelines and common sense.

Moreover, there may be a need for the ERC to send a communication to an RC soon after a disaster that surpasses trigger levels, instructing the RC to follow standard operating procedure by developing a flash appeal quickly.

The process outlined in this note applies to sudden-onset disasters (either natural or conflict-based). Flash appeal triggers for slow-onset disasters should be the subject of another paper.

IASC policy says that an appeal should be issued for any crisis or disaster needing humanitarian response that (a) exceeds the capacity of the affected country government, and (b) exceeds the capacity and/or mandate of any one UN agency. The question then becomes how to operationalise these very clear criteria, and apply them to any situation fast enough to make the right decision about whether to mobilise the flash appeal process.

2. Proposed triggers and process(A general trigger that would short-cut the others would be an appeal for international assistance by the affected country government, in a case where a single agency cannot cover the needs.)

If there is no formal request for international assistance, a flash appeal might still be necessary if any of the following have happened:

Significant number of dead and/or injured; Significant number of displaced population; Significant level of destruction of homes, infrastructure, or food supplies; Interruption of basic essential services (especially potable water, sanitation, or primary health

care).

For any situation where one of these indicators has happened19, OCHA shall rapidly research the affected country government’s capacity (plus that of the local Red Cross or Red Crescent Society, supported by IFRC, in case of natural disaster) to cover all urgent needs. OCHA shall simultaneously consult with the RC and the HCT (through the OCHA CRD Desk Officer or relevant OCHA regional office, as appropriate).

19 Sources of information for these indicators will be sitreps by OCHA, UNHCR, IFRC, the RC/HC, or the UNCT. If information is lacking, OCHA will try to infer these indicators using indirect methods (e.g. water levels, satellite imagery and topographical maps to infer the effects of flooding).



There can be no fixed benchmarks or thresholds that would allow these indicators alone to signal that a government’s capacity is surpassed, because each government’s capacity to respond differs. Ideally, contingency plans would always provide up-to-date information on government capacity; however in the real world such planning is uneven. OCHA will therefore quickly research the affected country government’s response to previous disasters on a similar scale. (ReliefWeb has such information going back 15 years for many countries.) A shortfall in government capacity, requiring an inter-agency response, in the most recent similar disaster shall suffice to trigger the flash appeal process.

(A situation may arise where the claim is made that the government has greatly improved its capacity and can now handle the current crisis. In such a case, the burden of proof should be on the Resident Coordinator to show that government stockpiles, logistics, coordination, and personnel are sufficient to avert the need for inter-agency response. If the RC cannot quickly demonstrate this capacity, s/he will have the responsibility to proceed with the flash appeal process.)

In researching government capacity, OCHA will liaise closely with IFRC (if natural disaster), with UNHCR (if the emergency consists primarily of refugee movement), or with UNHCR and IOM (if the emergency consists primarily of internal displacement), in order to double-check information on the scale of the disaster and on the capacity of the organisation mandated to respond to that type of disaster (local Red Cross/Red Crescent supported by IFRC for natural disaster, or UNHCR plus its implementing partners for refugee movements). In addition, OCHA would factor in relevant contingency plans of the Resident Coordinator and IASC CT. (As a preparedness step, OCHA will ascertain whether IFRC has contingency information for most countries that could be shared as background and baseline.)

Within OCHA, CAP Section shall take the lead in this triggering process. An important role is likely to be played by OCHA-NY desk officers and regional offices (or country office, if there is one).

IASC CAP SWG, May 2007


http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/dbc.nsf/doc100?OpenForm


ANNEX III. EXAMPLES OF PRIORITISATIONFor revisions, some or all of the following could be useful for determining possible criteria for selecting and prioritising (or categorising) projects: Assessment criteria: the appealing organisation’s project is based on an ex ante risk/needs

assessment Sectoral criteria: the appealing organisation’s project brings an added value to sector strategy

objectives which have been developed to address priority needs deriving from the current crisis. Organisational criteria: the appealing organisation was present in-country prior to onset of the

crisis and/or has the technical expertise in-country, capacity, and mandate to implement the project, or can scale up this operational capacity rapidly as required.

Beneficiary criteria: the project will address a priority vulnerable group. Geographic criteria: the project will be implemented in a region that is considered to be a

priority, as determined and agreed by the HCT. Temporal criteria: the projects can make a measurable impact in the time-frame of the appeal;

are necessary to allow affected persons to survive over the winter (winterisation). Other context-specific criteria: e.g. projects that

o include a focus on housing, land and property; o help to build local capacity; o promote gender equality; o lead into follow on mechanisms; o offer common services that enable other projects to take place (i.e. joint logistics

services);o reduce aid dependence;o facilitate access to affected populations;o avert harm in a time-critical way.

Knowledge management criteria: the project will document its experience for advocacy purposes.

Whilst CAPs sometime use a point system to determine prioritisation, this might be harder to do in the shorter timeframe of a flash appeal (both in terms of the time the HCT has to work on it and the timeframe of the appeal itself). There is no perfect example to use when deciding how to prioritise projects in a revision, but at a minimum, bearing in mind the short timeframe, the main criteria should be time-bound, or time-critical – which projects must start immediately, or before a certain date, in order to have the greatest impact.

Example from the revised 2008 Georgia Flash AppealThe HCT also conducted a prioritisation, or categorisation, exercise designed and understood as a method of taking into account the evolving nature of this crisis, and of directing attention and resources at the right time to where the needs are greatest. This furthers the implicit prioritisation in the revised Flash Appeal stemming from the JNA’s identification of ‘immediate priorities’ to be met within the first six months of its timeframe. As the response planning and fundraising mechanism for the first six months of the [World Bank/UN/EU-led Joint Needs Assessment], the revised Appeal's projects have thus been categorised into:A. projects that are vital to sustaining returnees or displaced persons, in particular throughout the

winter, and that must start as soon as possible; B. projects that support returnees, displaced populations, and other conflict-affected persons and

that should be started and finished within the six months of the appeal;C. projects that should start and finish within the six months of the appeal, and aim to ensure

self-sufficiency of affected populations into the JNA period.

It is important to state that the categorisation chosen (A, B, C) in no way implies a qualitative assessment of the projects, and only reflects the priority given in terms of the need to start certain projects as quickly as possible so that beneficiaries may be best prepared for the winter.

Summary of project categorisationCategory No. of projects

(68 total)% of total projects

Funding requested

% of funding

A 33 47% 85,346,952 27%B 24 34% 12,096,619 29%



C 13 19% 6,820,000 3%



Example from the revised 2008 Haiti Flash Appeal

Strategic priorities for humanitarian responseIn terms of timeframe, this revision of the Flash Appeal has been tailored to ensure consistency with the PDNA.20 For this same reason, the revised Appeal will run a total of eight months instead of the usual six, to the end of April 2009.

The response for the next six months until April 2009 retains a primary humanitarian dimension, the continuation of the relief efforts being the first priority of the international assistance community with the focus on life-saving activities.

Equally important, the response has been tackling key early recovery activities as essential non-life-saving actions that have to be carried out during the humanitarian phase and beyond into the recovery phase. These activities are critical as they set the basis to prevent unnecessary prolongation of humanitarian assistance, as well as laying out foundations for the recovery of livelihoods and coping mechanisms of the population. It is a key characteristic of early recovery actions that, by hastening the end of aid dependence, they free resources for other life-saving actions.

In view of the above, three categories of projects have been identified:Category A Immediate: Life-saving interventions in the most affected areas, namely Gonaïves

(Artibonite), South and South-East regions;Category B Continuation: Continuation of life-saving assistance throughout the country;Category C Time Critical: Recovery of livelihoods through necessary, rapid and time-limited

actions required to immediately avert or minimise additional loss of lives and damage to social and economic assets.

Example from the revised 2008 Kenya Humanitarian Response Plan

Projects in the revised appeal can be broadly categorised as being for maintenance of IDPs (including host families), resettlement / early recovery / restoring livelihoods, and drought. The IDP maintenance category has unmet requirements of $70 million; the drought category, $38 million; and the resettlement / early recovery category, $43 million (for the sake of this analysis, a simplifying assumption is made that one-half of the food needs are for the drought).

Example from the revised 2009 Philippines Flash Appeal In preparation for the revision of the Flash Appeal, the Humanitarian Country Team agreed to categorize projects according to vulnerability and type of intervention. People living in areas that continue to be submerged and farmers with 100% destroyed livelihoods were defined as the most vulnerable. Furthermore, a distinction was made between life-saving projects and activities that allow for the resumption of livelihoods. Following CERF criteria, life-saving humanitarian programmes are those actions that within a short-time span remedy mitigate or avert direct loss of life, physical harm or

20 Please see related footnote on page 8 of these Guidelines.



threats to a population. The category ‘resumption of livelihoods’ includes all projects that are time-critical to create a foundation for early as well as sustainable recovery.

The categories proposed for the revised Flash Appeal are the following:

Category Target population Included in category

Total funds requested

($)

Funds requested as %

total funding requested

A1: Life-saving activities in flooded areas 1,700,000

Flooded areas Evacuation centres Isolated areas with

difficult access Poorest members of the

target population

59,617,579 41%

B1: Resumption of livelihoods in flooded areas

21,262,851 14%

A2: Life-saving activities in other affected areas

500,000

Farmers/persons in the northern part of Luzon with 100% totally destroyed livelihoods

35,862,340 24%

B2: Resumption of livelihoods in other affected areas

2,500,000

A2+ farmers/persons in other affected areas, with partly destroyed livelihoods.

18,880,708 13%

C: Coordination and support services

Humanitarian Country Team and

Government 7,513,165 5%

Total 143,774,080*

Example from the revised 2009 Madagascar Flash Appeal

Priority is given in this revision to the following areas of intervention:(i) Drought in the south (approximately 276,000 persons requiring assistance)

Providing nutritional support to malnourished children and their families. Related food security, water and health interventions in support of nutrition activities. Time critical agricultural support and early recovery activities, as well as safety net food

security interventions, in anticipation of the lean season.

(ii) Urban violence and vulnerability (approximately 140,000 persons requiring assistance) Promotion of freedom of speech, social cohesion and human rights. Psycho-social support to deal with the impact of the crisis, especially exposure to politically

motivated violence among youth. Monitoring and assessment activities to track increasing vulnerability. Replenishment of emergency medical stocks and surgery supplies.

(iii) Cyclones (approximately 100,000 persons requiring assistance Emergency rehabilitation of schools. Replenishment of depleted stocks for upcoming cyclone season.

Based on the above, it is estimated that some 516,000 people continue to require humanitarian assistance – of which over 57,000 children under-five and 24,000 pregnant and lactating women.

Partners agreed that given the multiple crises and complex vulnerabilities, a four-fold response is needed, including:(i) provision of life-saving assistance and time critical early recovery elements; (ii) maintaining close monitoring of a potential deterioration of the humanitarian situation in urban

areas;(iii) reinforcement of human rights, protection and social cohesion; and,(iv) replenishment of critical emergency stocks.

A vetting committee reviewed all projects under the revised Appeal, and established the following criteria for selecting and prioritizing (or categorizing) projects:



A. Projects that are directly life-saving, and those that aim to reduce tensions and promote human rights;

B. Time critical safety-net activities to address pockets of acute vulnerability and/or meet clearly defined anticipated emergency needs;

C. Preventative and coordination measures in support of categories A and B above.

It is important to note that the categorization chosen in no way implies a qualitative assessment of the projects, and only reflects the priority given in terms of the need to start certain activities as soon as possible. All activities in the revised Appeal also meet two further criteria: capacity to implement within the Appeal timeframe, with implementing modalities clearly defined; and no overlap between projects.

Summary of project categorization

Category No. of projects(24 total)

% of total projects

Total funding requested

$% of funding

A 8 32 12,650,000 6.9B 9 36 6,505,245 26.2C 3 12 971,777 0Other (Fully funded) 5 20 2,220,676

Overall, under the revised Appeal, assistance will be provided to the following main groups:

ClusterTotal number of

beneficiaries per sector

Political crisis Drought-affected areas Cyclone

Food Security and Livelihoods

156,300 6,300 150,000 -

WASH 426,000 50,000

148,000 served by health centres

48,000 students 80,000 in 260 villages

100,000

Nutrition 81,000

7,000 malnourished children under five and families (35,000 people)

22,000 children under five at risk

24,000 PLW

-

Health 366,769 Up to 350 casualtiesUp to: 298,735 under-five 68,034 PLW

-

Education 73,000 42,000 students 28,000 youth

- 3,000 students

Protection 15,000

15,000 children 25 senior

managers of public and private media outlets Commanders of the army forces, gendarmerie, and police

Victims of human rights abuses

- -



ANNEX IV. NGOS AND FLASH APPEALS

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

A primary purpose of flash appeals is to present total humanitarian funding needs for a crisis, to make it clear to donors what their responsibility is. Increased NGO participation is important so as to present a global, complete view of the humanitarian response, to be clear on who does what where, and to show the role of NGOs alongside those of the UN and, where relevant, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. Flash appeals are also more meaningful as funding barometers if NGO funding needs are counted.

Improved pre-appeal contingency planning can help to overcome many of the problems that have been faced in the past, such as NGO unfamiliarity with United Nations’ response mechanisms, and time lost spent ascertaining who is available to assist in the response. Some of the most common issues that NGOs face when deciding whether or not to involve themselves in an appeal are the following:

Why could it help NGOs to list their project proposals and funding needs in flash appeals? Visibility: each flash appeal is sent in electronic and hard copy to each donor.

How can NGOs have project proposals included in flash appeals? Via clusters or sector working groups. Cluster leads have an explicit responsibility to gather and review all priority funding needs from all organisations in their cluster.

Can NGOs also send the same proposals directly to their usual donors? Definitely: this is also what UN agencies do.

Are flash appeals a funding pool or channel – in other words, do NGOs receive funding “through the flash appeal?No: the projects in flash appeals serve as a catalogue for donors for them to be able to structure their own response. NGOs will receive their funding directly from donors, but are encouraged to report it to FTS

Should an NGO still put its project in a flash appeal even if it is already likely to get funding for it?NGOs should list their projects in the flash appeal. Donors appreciate their funding being counted in the appeal, plus it helps the humanitarian system to present the overall funding needs for that crisis, demonstrate prioritisation, and measure the funding in response.

Should NGOs list their own proposals directly in a flash appeal, or should they be represented in “umbrella” proposals by UN agencies with NGOs as implementing partners? This is entirely up to the NGOs and the relevant UN agency, and is not up to the UN agency or cluster lead to decide alone: The main problem with “umbrella” projects is that funding is usually delayed before it reaches the NGO, and there are losses from pass-through costs. On the other hand, in some situations the stakeholders might agree that this is the best arrangement. NGOs should feel entitled to list their projects directly as an appealing agency.



ANNEX V. FINANCIAL TRACKING TIPS AND GUIDELINES FOR OCHA FOCAL POINTS AND CLUSTER LEADS

An accurate and complete record of the current funding status of a flash appeal is a key element of revision. It provides a quick overview of funding gaps and needs, as well as a barometer of activities/organisations that have not been previously included, but that should be brought into the strategic planning process.

The following are some brief tips and guidelines for ensuring that the information recorded on OCHA’s Financial Tracking Service are as up-to-date and accurate as possible.

1. Download funding tables from FTS and make them available for all partners. FTS in Geneva can help you create a customised table and add additional relevant columns for reporting if you wish. The most useful tables are Table A (all contributions to Appeal and non-Appeal projects); Table E (list of projects grouped by sector); and Table F (list of contributions to projects in the Appeal).

2. Ask partners to update all information. It is important that we have each individual contribution (i.e. by donor, amount, and date), as well as the project or activity/sector for which it will be used.

3. Ensure that a contact name and email is provided for each organisation for follow-up.4. It is best if the FA revision team can compile the information and send to OCHA in Geneva.

Frequently Asked Questions1. The information in your records is not correct—where did FTS get it? We receive

information directly from donors and recipient agencies. It is important to note that we cross-check all information with the donor and recipient agencies. We also use information reported in situation reports, UNCT notes and official press releases. Sometimes the information is received in the early days of the emergency and we rely on donors and partners to provide updated information.

2. Why are some contributions registered against the appeal and some contributions are registered outside the appeal? Some contributions are specifically earmarked for organisations and activities that are included in the Appeal, and are registered against the Appeal (Table F on FTS). However, some contributions are made to organisations and activities that have not been included in the Appeal and these are registered "outside" (Table H on FTS). Most donors have expressed a preference to have their funds counted against Appeal projects when possible. If we do not have the detailed information, we do our best to match reported contributions with projects (based on sector, activities, geographical location, etc.). Please inform us if what we have online is not correct. Bilateral and in-kind contributions and contributions to ICRC and IFRC are also registered outside the Appeal.

3. The dollar value of the contribution we received in Euros (or another currency) is not correct—why? If the contribution is not in US$, FTS records the original currency and amount. We use the UN monthly exchange rate conversions, so there may be small differences in what you see online and in your bank accounts.

4. Our organisation has used some of its own funds for the emergency response—can you record this? Absolutely. In this case, your organisation would be listed as both donor and recipient. If you have more than one project, please make sure and estimate the amount for each one (when relevant).

5. We only have pledge information—can you still record it? We don’t have the exact amount of the contribution yet—can you still record it? Yes. FTS is updated daily so just provide us with additional details when they are available.

6. Can NGOs report directly to FTS? Yes. We encourage it. Please see our website for the online contribution report form.

7. We received much more funding than expected—can projects be more than 100% funded? We prefer not to have projects funded much more than 100% percent and encourage organisations to revise their requirements to reflect the actual situation (in consultation with sector/cluster leads, the OCHA FA team, and according to agreed FA revision guidelines).


Click here for direct access to the Financial Tracking Service



ANNEX VI. USEFUL CONTACTSContacts within OCHA

Name Function Email Telephone/FaxCAP Section (Geneva)Robert Smith Chief of Section [email protected] +41 22 917 1695

Luke McCallin Humanitarian Affairs Officer, Flash Appeal Coordinator [email protected] +41 22 917 1603

Ysabel Fougery Humanitarian Affairs Officer, Policy Officer [email protected] +41 22 917 1400

Marie-Sophie Reck Humanitarian Affairs Officer, Launch and Training Coordinator [email protected] +41 22 917 1768

Esther Kuisch Humanitarian Affairs Officer, FTS Manager [email protected] +41 22 917 3404

Julie Thompson Humanitarian Affairs Officer, Financial Tracking Service [email protected] +41 22 917 1298

Laura Calvio Humanitarian Affairs Officer, Monitoring and Evaluation [email protected] +41 22 917 1874

Miriam Lange Humanitarian Affairs Officer, Needs Analysis [email protected]

CERF Secretariat (New York & Geneva)

Lucy Dickinson Rapid Response - CERF Secretariat dickinsonl @un.org +1 212 963 2687

Shelley Cheatham CERF Focal Point (Geneva) - CERF Secretariat [email protected] +41 22 917 1994

Coordination and Response Division (New York)Heidi Kuttab Liaison officer for CAP-related issues [email protected] +1 917 367 3365

Humanitarian Coordination Support Section (Geneva)Niels Scott Chief of Section [email protected] +41 22 917 3518

Displacement and Protection Support Section (Geneva)Belinda Holdsworth Humanitarian Affairs Officer [email protected] +41 22 917 2148

Anne-Marie Linde-Thalmann Humanitarian Affairs Officer [email protected] +41 22 917 1604

Visual Media UnitKirsten Gelsdorf Humanitarian Affairs Officer [email protected] +1-917-367-2174


















For contacts within the Global Cluster Leads, please refer to the Global Cluster Leads contact list (2 February 2010) on the OneResponse website.

Key contacts within IASC Subsidiary Bodies as of October 2010 (for a complete list of such bodies, please refer to the IASC Subsidiary Bodies page)

Name Function/Organisation Email Telephone/FaxSub-Working Group on the Consolidated Appeals ProcessRobert Smith Details as above

Contact Group on Good Humanitarian DonorshipRobert Smith Details as above

Sub-Working Group on Emergency Telecommunications (SWGET)Cherif Ghaly Chief, Technical Coordination and Partnership Section, OCHA (Geneva) [email protected] +41 22 917 2184

Task Force on Information ManagementMr. Brendan McDonald Chief, Information Services Section [email protected] +41 22 917 2810

Sub-Working Group on Gender and Humanitarian ActionDr. Henia Dakkak Technical Specialist, UNFPA (New York) [email protected] +1 212 297 5069

Amelia Peltz Winrock International [email protected] +1 703 525-9430 ext. 651

Sub-Working Group on Preparedness and Contingency Planning

Amy Horton Deputy Chief, Emergency Preparedness and Response Branch, WFP (Rome) amy.horton @wfp.org +39 06 6513 3637

Michel Le Pechoux Chief, Early Warning and Preparedness, Office of Emergency Programmes, UNICEF [email protected] +41 22 909 5610

Needs Assessment Task Force

Loretta Hieber-Girardet Senior Humanitarian Adviser, Disaster and Vulnerability Policy Section [email protected] +41 22 917 2853

Task Force on HIV in Humanitarian Situations

Fiona Perry World Vision, Geneva [email protected] na

Ahmed Zouiten WHO, Geneva [email protected] +41 22 791 4528

Reference Group on Mental Health and Psychosocial SupportAmanda Melville Project Officer Child Protection, UNICEF (New York) [email protected] +1 212 326 7208

Ms Alison Schafer World Vision [email protected] na













http://www.humanitarianinfo.org/iasc/pageloader.aspx?page=content-subsidi-default&mainbodyid=2&publish=0

http://oneresponse.info/Pages/default.aspx

http://oneresponse.info/Coordination/ClusterApproach/Pages/Global%20Cluster%20Leads.aspx


ANNEX VII. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONSACF Action Contre la FaimAIDS Acquired Immuno-deficiency Syndrome

BCPR Bureau of Conflict Prevention and Recovery

CAP Consolidated Appeals ProcessCARE Cooperative for Assistance and Relief EverywhereCERF Central Emergency Response FundCWGER Cluster Working Group on Early Recovery

DRM Disaster Risk Management

EMOPs Emergency OperationsER Early RecoveryERC Emergency Relief CoordinatorEU European Union

FAO Food and Agriculture OrganizationFTS Financial Tracking Service

HC Humanitarian CoordinatorHCT Humanitarian Country TeamHDR Human Development ReportHQ headquarterHRU Humanitarian Response Unit

IASC Inter-Agency Standing CommitteeICRC International Committee of the Red CrossIDPs internally displaced personsIFRC International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent SocietiesIOM International Organization for Migration

JNA Joint Needs Assessment

KRCS Kenyan Red Cross Society

NGOs non-governmental organisationsNRC Norwegian Refugee Council

OCHA Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian AffairsOHCHR Office of the High Commissioner for Human RightsOPS Online Project System

PDNA Post-Disaster Needs AssessmentPNS Participating National Societies

RC Resident Coordinator

SC Save the ChildrenSWGET Sub-Working Group on Emergency Telecommunications

UNAIDS Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDSUNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeUNFPA United Nations Population Funds Requested UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for RefugeesUNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund

WFP World Food ProgrammeWHO World Health OrganizationWVI World Vision International


Consolidated Appeal Process (CAP)

The CAP is a tool for aid organisations to jointly plan, coordinate, implement and monitor their response to disasters and emergencies, and to appeal for funds together instead of competitively.

It is the forum for developing a strategic approach to humanitarian action, focusing on close cooperation between host governments, donors, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, International Organization for Migration (IOM), and United Nations agencies. As such, it presents a snapshot of the situation and response plans, and is an inclusive and coordinated programme cycle of:

Strategic planning leading to a Common Humanitarian Action Plan (CHAP); Resource mobilisation leading to a Consolidated Appeal or a Flash Appeal; Coordinated programme implementation; Joint monitoring and evaluation; Revision, if necessary; Reporting on results.

The CHAP is the core of the CAP – a strategic plan for humanitarian response in a given country or region, including the following elements:

A common analysis of the context in which humanitarian action takes place; An assessment of needs; Best, worst, and most likely scenarios; A clear statement of longer-term objectives and goals; Prioritised response plans, including a detailed mapping of projects to cover all needs; A framework for monitoring the strategy and revising it if necessary.

The CHAP is the core of a Consolidated Appeal or, when crises break out or natural disasters strike, a Flash Appeal. Under the leadership of the Humanitarian Coordinator, and in consultation with host Governments and donors, the CHAP is developed at the field level by the Humanitarian Country Team. This team includes IASC members and standing invitees (UN agencies, the International Organization for Migration, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, and NGOs that belong to ICVA, Interaction, or SCHR), but non-IASC members, such as national NGOs, can also be included.

The Humanitarian Coordinator is responsible for the annual preparation of the consolidated appeal document. The document is launched globally near the end of each year to enhance advocacy and resource mobilisation. An update, known as the Mid-Year Review, is presented to donors the following July.

Donors generally fund appealing agencies directly in response to project proposals listed in appeals. The Financial Tracking Service (FTS), managed by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), is a database of appeal funding needs and worldwide donor contributions, and can be found on www.reliefweb.int/fts.

In sum, the CAP is how aid agencies join forces to provide people in need the best available protection and assistance, on time.

http://www.reliefweb.int/

OFFICE FOR THE COORDINATION OF HUMANITARIAN AFFAIRS(OCHA)

UNITED NATIONS PALAIS DES NATIONSNEW YORK, NY 10017 1211 GENEVA 10

USA SWITZERLAND

(Microsoft Word - MASTER COPY final revised Flash Appeal ...€¦ · Web viewsample of...

Documents

Transcript of (Microsoft Word - MASTER COPY final revised Flash Appeal ...€¦ · Web viewsample of...